OBJECTIVE: To identify the frequency of medication administration errors and their potential risk factors in units using a computerized prescription order entry program and profiled automated dispensing cabinets. DESIGN: Prospective observational study conducted within two clinical units of the Gastroenterology Department in a 1537-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Madrid (Spain). MEASUREMENTS: Medication errors were measured using the disguised observation technique. Types of medication errors and their potential severity were described. The correlation between potential risk factors and medication errors was studied to identify potential causes. RESULTS: In total, 2314 medication administrations to 73 patients were observed: 509 errors were recorded (22.0%)-68 (13.4%) in preparation and 441 (86.6%) in administration. The most frequent errors were use of wrong administration techniques (especially concerning food intake (13.9%)), wrong reconstitution/dilution (1.7%), omission (1.4%), and wrong infusion speed (1.2%). Errors were classified as no damage (95.7%), no damage but monitoring required (2.3%), and temporary damage (0.4%). Potential clinical severity could not be assessed in 1.6% of cases. The potential risk factors morning shift, evening shift, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical medication class antacids, prokinetics, antibiotics and immunosuppressants, oral administration, and intravenous administration were associated with a higher risk of administration errors. No association was found with variables related to understaffing or nurse's experience. CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration errors persist in units with automated prescription and dispensing. We identified a need to improve nurses' working procedures and to implement a Clinical Decision Support tool that generates recommendations about scheduling according to dietary restrictions, preparation of medication before parenteral administration, and adequate infusion rates.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the frequency of medication administration errors and their potential risk factors in units using a computerized prescription order entry program and profiled automated dispensing cabinets. DESIGN: Prospective observational study conducted within two clinical units of the Gastroenterology Department in a 1537-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Madrid (Spain). MEASUREMENTS: Medication errors were measured using the disguised observation technique. Types of medication errors and their potential severity were described. The correlation between potential risk factors and medication errors was studied to identify potential causes. RESULTS: In total, 2314 medication administrations to 73 patients were observed: 509 errors were recorded (22.0%)-68 (13.4%) in preparation and 441 (86.6%) in administration. The most frequent errors were use of wrong administration techniques (especially concerning food intake (13.9%)), wrong reconstitution/dilution (1.7%), omission (1.4%), and wrong infusion speed (1.2%). Errors were classified as no damage (95.7%), no damage but monitoring required (2.3%), and temporary damage (0.4%). Potential clinical severity could not be assessed in 1.6% of cases. The potential risk factors morning shift, evening shift, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical medication class antacids, prokinetics, antibiotics and immunosuppressants, oral administration, and intravenous administration were associated with a higher risk of administration errors. No association was found with variables related to understaffing or nurse's experience. CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration errors persist in units with automated prescription and dispensing. We identified a need to improve nurses' working procedures and to implement a Clinical Decision Support tool that generates recommendations about scheduling according to dietary restrictions, preparation of medication before parenteral administration, and adequate infusion rates.
Authors: Elizabeth A Flynn; Kenneth N Barker; Ginette A Pepper; David W Bates; Robert L Mikeal Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D W Bates; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; S D Small; D Servi; G Laffel; B J Sweitzer; B F Shea; R Hallisey Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hanna M Seidling; Anette Lampert; Kristina Lohmann; Julia T Schiele; Alexander J F Send; Diana Witticke; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Kumiko O Schnock; Patricia C Dykes; Jennifer Albert; Deborah Ariosto; Caitlin Cameron; Diane L Carroll; Moreen Donahue; Adrienne G Drucker; Rosemary Duncan; Linda Fang; Marla Husch; Nicole McDonald; Ray R Maddox; Julie McGuire; Sally Rafie; Emilee Robertson; Melinda Sawyer; Elizabeth Wade; Catherine S Yoon; Stuart Lipsitz; David W Bates Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.606